From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA 45 -- 2015
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:30:16 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 8D11320D4CC7277-1D70-44FC4**At_Symbol_Here**

I feel your pain.  Ideally the standard should have an appendix that explains their rationale for rejecting the hoods.  But that really isn't what the standards do.  I recently was voted down for including a long appendix in the theatrical fall protection standard (ANSI) which included all the current regulations we had to consider and showed why we had to reject certain equipment.  Nope, said the committee, and out it went.  Fortunately, being on the committee,  I still have access to this incredibly complete regulation list one of the other members put together for my own exploitation.
If you don't like the NFPA standards, $75/year makes you a member, you can apply to be on the committee, and you can raise your voice more effectively.  And since it is all done by e-mail, it's inexpensive and kinda fun.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Crowl <crowl**At_Symbol_Here**MTU.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 5:51 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NFPA 45 -- 2015

The big problem I have with NFPA documents is that they make big statements without any justification or explanation on why that statement was made.

For the recent case in point, they just state that ductless hoods cannot be used, but not why.

I think the NIH document has a good description of the problems -whether or not you agree with the final decision, I think the document describes the major issues.  There must also be changes in ductless technology since that document was done in 2005.

Let's fact it, we are all in the same situation with expanding research programs, a new focus on lab safety and a capacity limited hood system.

At Michigan Tech we have replaced the blower motors with larger motors and changed the pulleys to make the fans spin faster.  Maybe even replaced a blower or two.  We have also added dampers at various places to level out the load, and even turned off or reduced the airflow to hoods that were not being used or of minimal hazard.  This allowed us to add a few hoods, but nothing major. 

In my opinion, the hoods in our building are the most precious real-estate we have. 

Dan Crowl
Michigan Tech

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, <CHeadPE**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:
I have a question regarding NFPA 45.  I am wondering how undergraduate research labs fit into the definition of  Instructional laboratory units.  As defined in the 2011 version of NFPA:  
"used for education past the 12th grade and before post-college graduate-level instruction for the purposes of instruction of six or more persons for four or more hours per day or more than 12 hours per week.  Experiments and tests conducted in instructional lab units are under the direct supervision of an instructor.  Lab units used for graduate or post-graduate research are not to be considered instructional lab units."
The definition specifically excludes graduate and post-graduate research.  Why doesn't it exclude "undergrad research" too?   This would be situations where the instructor is not always present, but labs where several undergraduate students are working at the same time.
Thank you.
Charlotte J. Head, P.E.
industrial environmental consultant
North Kingstown, RI 02852
In a message dated 03/19/2014 1:13:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bfoster**At_Symbol_Here**WVU.EDU writes:
Dan referenced NFPA 45 in his recent email.
I would like to mention that NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals (current edition: 2011) is in the process of revision. The next edition is scheduled for 2015.
(I am a member of the 45 Technical Committee.)
Barbara L. Foster
Director of Laboratory Safety
Eberly College of Arts and Sciences
West Virginia University
304-276-0099 (mobile)
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Daniel Crowl
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Ductless fumehoods or Not.
Look at this NIH policy document on ductless hoods..  It is from 2005.  That is where I got the NFPA reference for NFPA 45.  It is section 6.4.1.
Dan Crowl
Michigan Tech
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard W. Denton <rwdenton3**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:
Hi everyone:
   I was asked by my department to assist in deciding whether to purchase ductless fumehoods  for our undergraduate chemistry labs. We are planning to use these for flammable solvents, and reactions involving  HCl and NaOH.  These hoods will be used by undergraduates for research also.  Any input on the safety issues involved with these equipments versus the regular hoods would be appreciated.
-Richard (CHO)

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.